Itoero

Mass in black holes (split from Mass)

Recommended Posts

Strange    2433
30 minutes ago, Itoero said:

Calculations suggest that physical information(like mass) could permanently disappear in a black hole. (Black hole information paradox)

I have never heard anyone suggest that mass can disappear from a black hole (other than through Hawking radiation). You are making stuff up again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
studiot    1133

Why is it that when a member asks a classical question about a classical physics law, placing it in a forum dedicated to classical physics, some insist on discussing

"Ah but there are some non classical exceptions"

?

Edited by studiot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Itoero    46

I just mentioned the black hole info paradox. This should be mentioned if someone asks about conservation of mass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
studiot    1133

Well I tried to delete my last post since it is no longer relevant, but that didn't work and I can no longer edit it.

Please ignore (or preferably delete) my last post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Strange    2433
6 minutes ago, Itoero said:

I just mentioned the black hole info paradox. This should be mentioned if someone asks about conservation of mass.

Why? It has nothing to do with mass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Itoero    46

Hawking proposed that information is lost in black holes(this started the black hole info paradox). Susskind disagreed, arguing that Hawking's conclusions violated one of the most basic scientific laws of the universe, the conservation of information. This started a long debate (mostly between Susskind and Hawking)...called the Black hole war. Susskind wrote a book called: Black Hole War: My Battle with Stephen Hawking to Make the World Safe for Quantum Mechanics   During a visit of Susskind with Gerard 't Hooft (in Holland), Gerard 't Hooft proposed the Holographic principle. If this principle is correct then Black Holes are basically holograms which explains the black hole info paradox and fits with the No- hair theorem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-hair_theorem

Hawking thinks a black hole has soft hair:  low-energy quantum excitations that release information(of for example mass that entered the black hole). when the black hole evaporates. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1601.00921.pdf This also solves the black hole info paradox.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Handy andy    26
24 minutes ago, Strange said:

But mass doesn't disappear.

Sensei wrote on another thread

"Process in which high energy photons are converted to matter-antimatter particles is called pair production.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production

Opposite process in which matter-antimatter particles are converted to photons is called annihilation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilation

"

Matter can be annihilated inside a black hole if some of it could be turned into antimatter. If matter is annihilated it disappears but its energy is still in existence in the form of gamma rays.

Would particles existing in a plasma inside a black hole become entangled and disappear like normal quantum particles, in space?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Strange    2433
36 minutes ago, Handy andy said:

Matter can be annihilated inside a black hole if some of it could be turned into antimatter.

You seem to have some confused ideas. Matter cannot turn into antimatter. (Of course, we don't know what goes on inside a black hole, but it is unlikely that it completely breaks all physics we know.)

36 minutes ago, Handy andy said:

Would particles existing in a plasma inside a black hole become entangled and disappear like normal quantum particles, in space?

I'm not sure why you think they might become entangled and why they might disappear...

Edited by Strange

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Handy andy    26
56 minutes ago, Strange said:

You seem to have some confused ideas. Matter cannot turn into antimatter. (Of course, we don't know what goes on inside a black hole, but it is unlikely that it completely breaks all physics we know.)

I'm not sure why you think they might become entangled and why they might disappear...

I mentioned Black holes, worm holes and white holes on another thread http://www.edinformatics.com/math_science/solar_system/black_holes_wormholes_white_holes.htm is it possible that space itself can be considered as a white hole. ..."According to a mind-bending new theory, a black hole is actually a tunnel between universes—a type of wormhole. The matter the black hole attracts doesn't collapse into a single point, as has been predicted, but rather gushes out a "white hole" at the other end of the black one, the theory goes."

Could black holes provide the energy to produce particles in space via a wormhole? assuming Einstein was right this is a possibility is it not?  

Que pensa?

Edited by Handy andy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Strange    2433

Well, we have found many likely black hole les and zero white holes. So the odds seem to be against it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Handy andy    26
14 hours ago, Strange said:

Well, we have found many likely black hole les and zero white holes. So the odds seem to be against it. 

Yes the theory did seem a little strange, but then a lot of QM is strange.

We know that blackholes can explode, ie lose matter

Blackholes are normally considered to be very dense objects that appear to distort space. Space according to some models is full of quantum particles, appearing and disapearing in the quantum world.

Is a quantum blackhole an absence of field or a weaker field existing momentarily in space, that causes other stronger fields to flow into the quantum blackhole, or is it a dense object that loses mass the same way as a standard blackhole. In  which case do these come in different sizes intensities etc.

How is a quantum blackhole defined, does anyone have a good link. Question mark 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
beecee    78
14 minutes ago, Handy andy said:

Yes the theory did seem a little strange, but then a lot of QM is strange.

We know that blackholes can explode, ie lose matter

 

BH's do not explode. Obviously you are speaking of Hawking Radiation, a hypothetical quantum effect ( but one in my  opinion, is reasonably logical and sustainable)  that concerns itself with virtual particle pairs created just this side of a BHs EH: One may fall into the BH while the other escapes. The escaping particle becomes real, while the negative partner that is sucked into the BH, subtracts from the BHs mass.   That is a lay persons description of it and a more correct summation can be found at: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/hawking.html  and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6srN4idq1E 

 

Quote

How is a quantum blackhole defined, does anyone have a good link. Question mark 

Quantum or Primordial BHs are also a hypothetical aspect of micro BH's around Planck size that may have been created in the hot dense early conditions that existed just after the BB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Strange    2433
46 minutes ago, Handy andy said:

We know that blackholes can explode, ie lose matter

Only if they are really, really tiny. And we have no evidence that such things exist.

46 minutes ago, Handy andy said:

Blackholes are normally considered to be very dense objects that appear to distort space.

Large black holes have a very ow density.

47 minutes ago, Handy andy said:

Space according to some models is full of quantum particles, appearing and disapearing in the quantum world.

That is part of the standard model. So "some models" is "mainstream science".

48 minutes ago, Handy andy said:

Is a quantum blackhole an absence of field or a weaker field existing momentarily in space, that causes other stronger fields to flow into the quantum blackhole, or is it a dense object that loses mass the same way as a standard blackhole. In  which case do these come in different sizes intensities etc.

What do you mean by a quantum black hole?  Do you just mean black holes that are the same sort of size as a proton (or smaller)? In which case, they would be just like any other black hole (except they would explode in a fraction of a second).

If you want to play around with the mass, size, lifetime, temperature, etc of a black hole this calculator will answer a lot of questions: http://xaonon.dyndns.org/hawking/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Handy andy    26

Thanks for the links, Becee and Strange, I will take a bit of time to read through them. But is all matter black holes? https://phys.org/news/2009-05-mini-black-holes.html 

How much energy is hawking radiation meant to produce? If the quantum world eminates around mini black holes of various sizes, what amount of radiation would be given off in space around quantum black holes in space.

I am easily confused Migl stated "

If I may...

According to accepted physics theory, Black holes can and do explode.
A BH has entropy and therefore a temperature. If its temperature exceeds that of surrounding space ( 2.7 deg ) then the Hawking mechanism will transform one of a virtual particle pair into a real particle, BUT, at the expense of the BH's mass-energy, so that, slowly the BH evaporates. This mechanism has been described in pop science as the capturing of one virtual particle by the event horizon ( very simplistic ), to tunneling 'through' the event horizon, and is in effect, a 'shotgun marriage' of GR and QFT.
As the BH gets smaller and smaller ( and its temperature/radiation increases dramatically ), it reaches the point where it can shed its event horizon and explode.
And although small primordial BHs are thought to have been formed at the energy densities immediately following the Big Bang, and would have evaporated by now, no-one has yet detected the tell-tale gamma ray burst of a BH exploding in its final moments.

"

Would a quantum black hole produce radiation at around 2.7 K ?

Is this part of the standard model, quantum foam gravity  https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0307003.pdf

Cross posted

 

Edited by Handy andy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Strange    2433
13 minutes ago, Handy andy said:

But is all matter black holes?

No.

13 minutes ago, Handy andy said:

How much energy is hawking radiation meant to produce?

It is inversely proportional to the square of the mass. (See that calculator page for details.) 

Quote

If the quantum world eminates around mini black holes of various sizes, what amount of radiation would be given off in space around quantum black holes existing all over space.

They would evaporate (explosively) in fractions of a second.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Handy andy    26
5 minutes ago, Strange said:

No.

It is inversely proportional to the square of the mass. (See that calculator page for details.) 

They would evaporate (explosively) in fractions of a second.

What values would one feed into your calculator for a miniature black hole on the plank scale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Strange    2433
3 minutes ago, Handy andy said:

What values would one feed into your calculator for a miniature black hole on the plank scale.

You can enter the radius or the mass or the power output or the lifetime or ...

And it will calculate everything else. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Strange    2433
38 minutes ago, Handy andy said:

What is the radius of a theoretical quantum black hole or particle, does the model apply at this level.?

It depends on its mass. The model applies but we have no idea if it is accurate (it almost certainly isn't). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
beecee    78
19 hours ago, Handy andy said:

Thanks for the links, Becee and Strange, I will take a bit of time to read through them. But is all matter black holes? https://phys.org/news/2009-05-mini-black-holes.html 

How much energy is hawking radiation meant to produce? If the quantum world eminates around mini black holes of various sizes, what amount of radiation would be given off in space around quantum black holes in space.

I am easily confused Migl stated "

If I may...

According to accepted physics theory, Black holes can and do explode.
A BH has entropy and therefore a temperature. If its temperature exceeds that of surrounding space ( 2.7 deg ) then the Hawking mechanism will transform one of a virtual particle pair into a real particle, BUT, at the expense of the BH's mass-energy, so that, slowly the BH evaporates. This mechanism has been described in pop science as the capturing of one virtual particle by the event horizon ( very simplistic ), to tunneling 'through' the event horizon, and is in effect, a 'shotgun marriage' of GR and QFT.
As the BH gets smaller and smaller ( and its temperature/radiation increases dramatically ), it reaches the point where it can shed its event horizon and explode.
And although small primordial BHs are thought to have been formed at the energy densities immediately following the Big Bang, and would have evaporated by now, no-one has yet detected the tell-tale gamma ray burst of a BH exploding in its final moments.

"

Would a quantum black hole produce radiation at around 2.7 K ?

Is this part of the standard model, quantum foam gravity  https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0307003.pdf

Cross posted

 

I still don't like the BH exploding concept, rather see them as evaporating.....

The quantum BHs if they existed, would have evaporated in very quick time: standard stellar and SMBHs would take near the life of the universe to evaporate. The two papers you have linked to are interesting in what I have read so far [the abstracts] but appear speculative at this stage of proceedings. Whether an evaporating BH is the source of GRBs is also unkown at this time, in fact I believe there is as much speculation that GRBs happen when a BH first forms. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Itoero    46
On ‎10‎-‎9‎-‎2017 at 5:01 PM, Strange said:

But mass doesn't disappear.

Why not? They don't know what happens with info that enters a black hole. This info is energy or mass.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now